the
Skeptic's Dictionary
Newsletter 57

July 16, 2005

"When critics [in the
autism/thimerosal debate] say someone is lying "you have to say, 'yeah, but
are they lying on behalf of the truth or are they lying on behalf of a
lie?'" -- Peter Sandman, risk
communicator

There are malicious spammers out there who request in
an e-mail that you open an attachment. They have various lures to get you
to do this. For the record, each subscriber to this newsletter should know
I will never request that you open any attachments. Any such request
is bogus and did not come from me.

Also, this newsletter is a one-way street, unless you
choose to send feedback. I do not send out
requests to respond in order to maintain a subscription.

Generally, I don't like journalists to do my thinking
for me. I don't read newspapers, listen to radio news, or watch TV news to
get my opinions reinforced. I like journalists to give me what they know and
let me decide whether I should be terrified or proud or feel some other
emotion. However, when the story is about some topic that reinforces
pre-scientific ways of thinking about reality, such as astrology or psychic
power or spirits with plans, I cringe when a journalist reports the story
without giving any hint that there is something fundamentally wrong about
21st century adults thinking like children or pre-scientific shamans. It
should go without saying that I do not find it cute or quaint that most
daily newspapers print astrology columns.

I realize that journalists can defend their silence on
these issues by invoking the fairness doctrine (it's only fair that
both sides be heard and it would be wrong to show a bias in favor of
science, progress, and rationality), the freedom & equality doctrine
(we believe in freedom of speech and so must treat all views equally, no matter how
idiotic), or the ignorance doctrine (you skeptics don't
really know for sure that the position of planets can't affect personality, that some people can't communicate telepathically with dead dogs,
or that a healer can't cure people over the telephone by magic).

On the other hand, I get great pleasure when I stumble
on a journalist who calls
magical thinkingmagical thinking. I've mentioned before such bright lights as Leon
Jaroff (Time), Michael Shermer (Scientific
American),Andrew Skolnick,
Doug Wyatt (Savannah Morning News), and John Stossel (ABC). Now I
must mention George Claasen of South Africa's News24.com. Read his report on
the
World Summit on Evolution and his column "Horoscopes
a load of hogwash." The latter column covers a lot more than just the
folly of horoscopes. It reports on some of the things that happen when you
live in a world that has no place for science or scientific thinking. Of
course, management can't acknowledge that thinking critically is one of the
family values it promotes. Here is News24's disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the
expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are
therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
(It doesn't hurt that Mr. Claasen also
mentions skepdic.com favorably. He's not only a good thinker; he has
impeccable taste!)

In case you haven't noticed, I don't send out an annual
plea for money to support the cause. I have been able to cover most of the
expenses of maintaining SkepDic.com through my
Amazon.com affiliation. Every
time you buy something from Amazon from a direct link on one of my Web
pages, I receive a small fee. I also receive a fee, though smaller than for
a direct link, if you go to Amazon from a link on one of my pages and
purchase something else from Amazon at that time. So, thank you to those who
make your Amazon purchases by going first to SkepDic.com. Remember, you can
purchase The Skeptic's Dictionary online from
Amazon.

There is still time to register for CSICOP's annual
Toolbox at the University of
Oregon, August 11-14, 2005. If you go, you'll get to spend a weekend in the
company of Ray Hyman, Barry Byerstein, Wally Sampson, Jim Alcock, Lauren
Pankratz, the incomparable Jerry Andrus, and about 40 fellow critical thinkers. This years
focus is on some of the classics of skeptical investigation, including the
Soal-Goldney experiment.
I've attended the last two years and highly recommend it. Unfortunately, due
to other commitments I won't be able to attend this year.

The following may not be classics, but they are worthy
exemplars of what happens when skepticism is abandoned in empirical
research.

As a teacher, few things are more gratifying than a
student demonstrating that the instruction was not in vain. Ray Hall, who
teaches a course on Science and Nonsense at California State University,
Fresno, passed on the following from a student who'd taken his course.

Dr.
Johanna M. Hoeller is a chiropractor who is fully certified by NUCCA (National Upper Cervical Chiropractic
Association). She practices a special kind of alignment of the
atlas that even she
didn't know she practices until she saw a
videotape of
it. The treatment consists of the patient lying on his or her side while Dr. Hoeller
twists her own wrist above the neck of the patient. The twisting produces a
popping noise. She continues with the wrist-cracking until she's popped all
the air out of her joints. She never touches the patient. She takes an x-ray of the patient's neck before and after the treatment. She shows the patient the x-rays
hanging side by side, which she has overlaid with red and blue lines. She points out how the
red line doesn't match up with the blue line on the before picture like it
does with the after picture.

Since Dr. Hoeller does not touch the patient, who
simply lies still during the procedure, no realignment of the atlas is
possible. As far as I can tell, the only thing that moves are the lines Hoeller superimposes over the x-rays. I made stills from
her video of two x-rays for comparison.
Check it out. If
anything in the patient's neck moves during the therapy it happens when the
patient lies down or gets up.

A couple of patients are interviewed in the video and they're convinced
Hoeller's therapy works. One fellow says the treatment works so
well he's been coming in for more than seven years. Somehow, I don't find
that to be much of an endorsement.

This case is a classic example of
confirmation bias and
self-deception on
Dr. Hoeller's part and
subjective
validation on the part of the patients. Ignorance may also play a
role in Dr. Hoeller's belief about the body's power to be healed. (Like may
New Age healers, Dr. Hoeller is humble and denies she has any special
powers. She just helps the body heal itself.) However, according to
Samuel Homola,
D.C., "the atlas is the highest spinal bone in the neck and has no
connection to any structure that could cause back pain."

The
regressive fallacy is probably at work for some of the patients.
For example, one of the two patients in the video complained of shooting
pains down her leg. I had such pains not long ago and spent several
sleepless nights hoping for someone to cut my leg off. For two
days, I sat as little as possible, walked as much as possible, and did basic back exercises
several times a day. After three
days, I was
playing golf with no pain. Who knows what I might believe if I'd gone to Dr. Hoeller when I was at the peak of my misery.

The
pragmatic fallacy plays a role in the belief of both doctor and patient
but the root cognitive illusion at work in these kinds of beliefs is
magical thinking.
Neither doctor nor patient seems to recognize the principle that lets us
distinguish events that are causally related from those that are merely
associated in (a) time or space or (b) symbolically in images or words. Most
people who do not think magically would not try this therapy. Most
scientists would not even bother to do a controlled experiment to test the
hypothesis that cracking one's wrist over the neck of another person can
have any physical effect on the atlas, even if they thought that the atlas
might have some remote connection to back or leg pain.

The patient's willingness to experiment with magical
as opposed to scientific treatments is usually explained in terms of
desperation: Nothing scientific has worked so far; I'll try anything to
get rid of this pain! The patient may realize the irrationality of the
treatment and yet be willing to try it on the remote hope that it might
work. Such a patient resolves
cognitive dissonance
by engaging in wishful
thinking: I'll give up rationality in the hope that there might be
someone who really can work magic. Maybe some of those stories of magical
cures are really true. Scientists don't know everything! Maybe most
things work by laws of nature that we know and understand but there may
still be a few areas where different kinds of laws are at work that we
haven't yet discovered.

The doctor's strong belief in the efficacy of her
treatment is strengthened by the positive feedback she gets from patients
who have deluded themselves into thinking that she's cured them. She may not
get much negative feedback. Many of her patients must realize that her
methods are unlikely to have any effect on anything, so they are not likely
to protest too loudly when the treatment fails. She may not keep records of
her "successes" and "failures." In her mind, however, she may remember the
successes and repress the memory of her failures. In that way she deceives
herself into believing that her treatment is extremely effective. She has
probably never tested her methods under controlled conditions and may not
even know how to do so. Why test something that obviously works?

On a related note ... I rarely hear from chiropractors
but recently I received e-mails from three chiropractors, each critical of
my entry on chiropractic.
Coincidence? I doubt it. The letters varied in degree of civility,
intelligibility, and rationality. Here's a sample of the worst of the bunch:

It sounds like your facts have become confused with your philosophy.

As you have defined chiropractic as alternative, to wit; "A health or
medical practice is called "alternative" if it is based on untested,
untraditional, or unscientific principles, methods, treatments, or
knowledge. "Alternative" medicine is often based upon metaphysical beliefs
and is frequently anti-scientific. Because truly "alternative" medical
practices would be ones that are known to be equally or nearly equally
effective, most "alternative" medical practices are not truly "alternative,"
but quackery", it appears we chiropractors need to start another lawsuit as
we did in Wilkes vs AMA. Since it should be layed upon you and yours, this
time it won't take so long to win.

If experimental orthodox medicine really wanted to get rid of natural
healing, including chiropractic, all they have to do is get sick people
well. However, because they are failing miserably, as of 2004, natural
healing surpassed experimental orthodox medicine in total patient visits. It
is for that reason, medics are now "embracing" what they call complementary
medicine. As I assume you are intelligent enough to know, it's all about
money or the loss of it. Experimental orthodox medicine (like you) has their
own agenda. Fortunately, the average person on the street can see through
your bovine excrement.

Yours for Freedom of Health Choice including the right of cut/slash, burn
and poison societies... Dr. blah blah

Dr. blah blah sounds like man of sound mind and
healthy character. May his alignments go unnoticed. I won't respond to all
his gibberish but I will comment on his claim that "it's all about money."
Contrary to Dr. blah blah's view, money is only part of it. If it were just
about the money, then more physicians would take their cue from folks like
Deepak Chopra. Most physicians are not starving
for customers and are probably grateful that chiropractors and massage
therapists will work with the many people who have back and leg pains. It
gives physicians more time to spend with patients who have more serious
ailments.

Another chiropractor chided me for not keeping up to
date with and posting on my Web site all the great new science supporting
chiropractic principles. He suggests
http://www.idealspine.com. I suggest he not ignore what I write in my
entry on chiropractic: "This is not to say that chiropractors don't help
people with aching backs, including people with chronic back problems. It is
the theory of subluxations that has not been supported by scientific
studies." The studies this chiropractor refers to support a variety of
claims but none of them support the classic notion of subluxation.
Furthermore, while there are many studies that indicate chiropractic can
help people with back pain, there are also studies that indicate this pain
can be relieved with equal success without resorting to chiropractic or the
theory of subluxations. Furthermore, chiropractors are misleading the public
when they claim that they, but not medical doctors, believe in the body's
own power to heal. Every physician knows about proteins and tissue healing
with rest. Do alternative practitioners really believe that physicians are
ignorant of the body's immune system? (For an excellent introduction to
immunology, I suggest
Dr. Gerald N.
Callahan's Faith, Madness, and Spontaneous Human Combustion: What
Immunology Can Teach Us About Self-Perception.The author has
a poet's eye and I guarantee you'll learn more about the body's ability to
heal itself from this little book than you will from reading all the
scientific studies published in support of chiropractic. The read will be
pleasurable as well as enlightening.)

The third chiropractor, in addition to harping on the
alleged ignorance of the medical profession about the body's ability to heal
itself, thinks that the fact that chiropractic has survived for as long as
it has is proof that testimonial evidence and practical success is all
that's needed for a health practice to survive. I agree and refer to the
cognitive illusions listed above in discussing the "success" of Dr. Hoeller
as the best explanation for the survival of chiropractic. I don't accept the
notion of this chiropractor that it took 100 years but the science has
finally caught up to Dr. Palmer's theory of subluxations.

***

Now, on to a note from a student from my class on
Critical Thinking
About the Paranormal. He sent me a news item about a company in Australia
that correlated automobile accident reports with astrological sun signs.
Suncorp Metway,
Ltd., studied 160,000 accident claims over a three-year period and found
that Geminis are the worst drivers and Capricorns are the best. No data was
given in the
article I read, but the author, a professional astrologer who
specializes in family readings, had an explanation for the rankings put out
by Suncorp. I could find no mention of the "study" on the Suncorp page and I
rather doubt that it will find its way into a scientific journal, but that
didn't stop Nancy R. Fenn from interpreting the results for us. Her article
is actually a commentary on the comments of Warren Duke, Suncorp's
national manager of personal insurance, who apparently fancies himself an
expert in astrology as well.

According to Duke, Geminis are “typically described as
restless, easily bored and frustrated by things moving slowly.” That should
give us a better understanding of
famous Geminis like
Queen Victoria, Barbara and George Bush, Pat Boone, and William Butler
Yeats. Of course, there are plenty of famous and non-famous non-Geminis who
are restless and easily bored, but why complicate things?

Taureans came in right behind the Geminis. Fenn agreed
with Duke's assessment of Geminis but she had her own take on those of us
born under the sign of the bull.

Their thinking as drivers may run like this. My stomach is full, the
temperature in the car is pretty good, the noise level is good, I'm riding
right at 60, I don't have to use the bathroom for at least another hour and
there's plenty of gas in the tank. At a very fundamental level, the world
outside the chassis of their car may not exist at all. Since freeway driving
requires spatial perception and processing of much abstract information
(speed, flow and distance), this is counter to their natural way of
processing the world around them.

According to Fenn, Taureans live in the here and now
and focus on their own body. It's unnatural for us to process abstract
information. Being introverted and self-absorbed, we would tend to be
reckless drivers. (Of course, if we were extroverted, we'd tend to be
reckless drivers, too, but why complicate matters?)

Scorpios, who come in right behind Capricorns as the
best drivers, says Fenn

may stay safe because they are intimately involved with the inner lives
of others in the same way their opposite sign Taurus is defended against
this information. Scorpios are sensitive to energy— whether it is a foot
away or thousands of miles away—and can feel someone “ coming up from
behind ” at many different levels. Scorpios know if you've had a fight
with your wife the night before or if you're thinking about embezzling or
having an affair with your best friend's husband. That's why we always
feel like they can see right through us. They can.

Scorpios would be the drivers who would instinctively “wake up” in time
to let a cocaine addict pass them at 95 or give a wide berth to a passive
aggressive soccer mom hassling two kids in the back seat and a phone
conversation with her husband all at the same time.

Wow! I'll bet Scorpios are more psychic than the rest
of us, too. They're "sensitive to energy." Now there's a scientific concept
for you. And they can see right through us, just like Superman!

A recent Harris survey found that religion and magical
thinking still trump science in the US. In a nationwide telephone survey of
1,000 adults, 54% say they do not believe humans evolved from earlier
species, while 64% believe that human beings were created directly by God.
The pollsters note: "In general, older adults (those 55 years of age and
older), adults without a college degree, Republicans (73%), conservatives
(75%), and Southerners (71%) are more likely to embrace the creationism
positions." On the other hand, 58% of Democrats and 48% of those who
identify themselves as political liberals believe in creationism. Republican
conservatives and liberal Democrats seem to differ in degree, not kind, when
it comes to magical thinking.

Twenty-three percent of those surveyed said they
believe that creationism, but not evolution or intelligent design, should be
taught in public schools, while 12% think that evolution should be taught to
the exclusion of creationism and intelligent design. Fifty-five percent
think that evolution, creationism, and intelligent design should be
taught in our public schools.

The Harris survey was released with the following
notice about its methodology:

In theory, with a probability sample of this size, one can say with 95
percent certainty that the overall results have a sampling error of plus or
minus 3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire U.S. adult
population had been polled with complete accuracy. Sampling error for the
sub-sample results is higher and varies. Unfortunately, there are several
other possible sources of error in all polls or surveys that are probably
more serious than theoretical calculations of sampling error. They include
refusals to be interviewed (nonresponse), question wording and question
order, interviewer bias, weighting by demographic control data and screening
(e.g., for likely voters). It is impossible to quantify the errors that may
result from these factors.

There are other sources of error as well: false
implications and false dilemmas. For example, consider this question that
was asked in the Harris poll: "Please tell me whether you agree or disagree
with the following statement: Darwin's theory of evolution is proven by
fossil discoveries." The question gives the false impression that
Darwin's theory is supported mainly by fossil evidence. That may have been
true in the middle of the 19th century, but there is now abundant evidence
from anatomy1,
2,
3,
4,
5, molecular biology6,
7,
8,
9, 10,
genetics11,
12,
and so on13.
This question unwittingly feeds into the creationist argument that the
fossil evidence is inadequate to support evolution. Creationists are
especially fond of harping on the absence of "transitional forms" in the
evolutionary record. When they are not
misquoting people,
the creationists put forth an argument that seems plausible to those
ignorant of science and logic. A truly transitional form between species
would not have been abundant, otherwise it wouldn't be transitional. But
even when fossils of transitional forms are found, creationists demand a
transitional form to the transitional form. The request for transitional
forms is impossible to fulfill because it is never-ending.

Here's another question asked by Harris that is
problematic:

"Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to
be?"

Human beings evolved from earlier species. 22 %

Human beings were created directly by God. 64 %

Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or
intelligent being to help create them. 10 %

Not sure/Decline to answer 4 %

The question is loaded: It creates a
false dilemma. Note that the percentages
add up to 100%, meaning that participants had to choose one answer to the
exclusion of the others. Yet, many people believe in evolution and
creationism, creationism and intelligent design, evolution and intelligent
design, or all three.

In any case, from the point of view of scientific
education, this survey plays into the hands of the ID and creationist folks
by asking the question regarding the teaching of these topics in public
schools as if it were a matter that should be decided by public opinion.

Was it synchronicity or coincidence that while
considering the Harris survey I received the following e-mail from Norman
Paterson of the UK. (I hope Norman doesn't mind that I've made some small
revisions.)

Recently, school pupils (in Bristol, I think) counted bird droppings on
cars and found more on white cars than on cars of other colors. The
students had to produce
testable hypotheses to explain the observations. (The press reporting this
was only able to think of one hypothesis: The birds selected white cars.)
If "junk recognition" is included as part of science teaching then we
might have hypotheses as follows:

1. Bias in sample selection. 2. Birds select white cars. 3. White cars are less likely to be garaged. 4. White paint preserves bird
droppings better. 5. There are more white
cars than cars of other colors. 6. It's part of the design of the aliens
who created all species on this planet. 7. It's part of God's design.

There are, of course, countless others. It's easy to see that
hypotheses 1-6 are naturalistic, but only 1-5 could lead to further research and who knows
what discoveries, while hypotheses 6 and 7 are scientific dead ends. This
would be a useful lesson about the nature of scientific knowledge and how we obtain
it. And, it doesn't need to take up much time.

I like Norman's suggestion that teachers of biology
introduce their students to creationism and intelligent design in order to
teach a valuable lesson about science: Some approaches lead nowhere
even if true (e.g., bringing in aliens or gods to explain how things work), so we avoid
them in science.

***

Another recent poll, published in the Journal of
General Internal Medicine, found that 76% of the physicians surveyed
believe in God (versus 83% among the general public) and 56% believe in an
afterlife (compared to 62% of the general public).

I suppose I bring up these polls because I fail to see
what good all this religiosity is doing us as a nation. Individuals may
benefit from their religious beliefs but I can't see that religion has
brought the country as a whole any benefit. Religiosity hasn't helped our
educational system, our health-care system, or our political system. I can't
see any evidence that it has made us a more moral nation. If
anything, religion has hurt us by encouraging irrationality,
superstition, wishful thinking, arrogance, and magical thinking. (Sorry for
being so evasive. In the next newsletter, I'll tell you what I really
think!)

As a writer, I often struggle with being misunderstood
because I have not written something as clearly as I should have. I usually
find this out when a reader questions me and I realize that the reader
wouldn't be asking the question had I done a better job as a writer.
Sometimes, however, I believe I've said exactly what I mean in as clear a
fashion as possible and the reader still gets a message I never intended.
Sometimes I can't figure out how they arrive at their understanding. Other
times I can and I blame the reader. For example, I received this letter from
"Chris":

I have read some of your website entries, and would like to point out a
couple of problems with your logic. Not that I disagree with your
conclusions, mind you, but if you are going to use science to argue
against something you should close the loopholes. In regards to:

a) Crop circles - Your logic appears to be as follows: Crop circles are
claimed to be the result of aliens. Some crop circles have been created by
men. Therefore all crop circles have been created by men. This is not
sound logic.

b) The Philadelphia Experiment - You disprove the claims by quoting two
conflicting sources. The group of sailors that told the Philadelphia
Inquirer that the ship was never docked in Philadelphia, and Edward
Dudgeon, the sailor from the sister ship, who says it was there, he saw it
himself.

No reply is necessary or expected.

I suppose Chris didn't need a reply because he's sure of
his reading. He doesn't need a response because I'm the one
who isn't thinking logically. Actually, Chris and many like him do need a
response. They seem to think they are free to frame my writing to fit what
they think my purpose should be. I can't count how many times I've been
criticized because I didn't write a book of articles that tries
to examine all the evidence on the topics I take up. I make it clear in the
introduction to the book that The Skeptic's Dictionary was designed
to provide the best skeptical arguments and
references on the topics I take up. Chris seems to think that I am making an
argument in my crop circle entry with the conclusion that all crop circles
have been created by men. He hasn't read the article very carefully. The
statements "Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters"
and "Some believe that the crop designs are messages from alien spacecraft"
make it clear that I don't claim categorically that all crop circles have been created by
men. But that is a minor point. The crop circle entry isn't an argument at
all. If anything, it is an attempt to explain why many people believe
a farfetched hypothesis over a simpler, more parsimonious one. People have
always invented magical causes for things they don't understand or don't
want to understand. Today, aliens are offered as causes of all kinds
of things that in another era would have been attributed to Satan.

It would not be possible to prove that aliens haven't
created any crop circles. The best I can hope for is that readers will
recognize that even elaborate crop circles can be pulled off in a short
amount of time by idle teenagers or malicious pub dwellers. I can't make
anyone apply Occam's razor. I can only point out that there is a much
simpler and more plausible explanation for any given crop circle: It is more
probable that it was created by humans than by aliens.

Also, most of my entries have links to other entries.
The crop circle entry links to entries on alien abduction, the ancient
astronaut hypothesis, and the UFO entry. If Chris and other readers follow
those links and read those entries, I think they will find that the evidence
is much stronger for the "humans did it" than for the "aliens did it"
hypothesis.

I could make a similar case for the Philadelphia
experiment entry. A proper reading of the entry will find that I imply one
story is more plausible than the other, not that the story I favor is put
forth to prove a contrary theory is false.

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell. I
haven't read much of this one, but so far he's provided a few interesting
anecdotes and some grandiose promises. He claims there's a science to making
good snap judgments and mastering this science "would change the way wars
are fought, the kinds of products we see on the shelves, the kinds of movies
that get made, the way police officers are trained, the way couples are
counseled, the way job interview are conducted, and on and on." We'll see.

Faith, Madness, and Spontaneous Human Combustion: What Immunology Can
Teach Us About Self-PerceptionbyGerald N. Callahan
is worth mentioning again. This is a great little book written by a poet
who's also an M.D. Tom Cruise claims that Scientology cured him of dyslexia.
If so, he should read this book to find out that postpartum depression is
not a vitamin deficiency. On second thought, this book might be too deep for
Tom Cruise, but he should be informed that a woman's immune system is five
times more likely to turn against her than is a man's. Trust me, Tom, it's
not because women need more vitamins than men do. Here's a brief passage:

During pregnancy, systemic lupus erythematosus flares,
rheumatoid arthritis recedes. Shortly after pregnancy is when autoimmune
thyroiditis most often develops. During pregnancy, fetal cells in the
placenta secrete an enzyme, inidoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, or IDO. IDO
destroys tryptophan, an essential amino acid. Without trypthopan, the
mother's immune system falters. The battle subsides. The parasite prospers.
The picture of self blurs. After pregnancy, some women experience postpartum
depression so severe that the identities of both self and child collapse.
Shortly after delivers, women with this illness have tried to kill
themselves, their children, both. It is a time of both personal and
immunological crises.

I have not enjoyed many writers as much as I am
enjoying Callahan.

Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for
Human Nature by David J. Buller. This is another book I am really
enjoying. Buller has written a book about evolutionary psychology (EP) that
1) does not assume the reader knows everything there is to know about
evolutionary biology; 2) does not assume that EP is de rigueur; and
3) promises to demonstrate that all the major details of the EP paradigm are
wrong.

CBS, not to be outdone by NBC's "Medium," is introducing "Ghost Whisperer"
to its roster of TV garbage for the masses. The show will star Jennifer Love
Hewitt and is based on the allegedly true story of Mary Ann Winkowski of
North Royalton, Ohio. The former pet groomer has found a way to supplement
her income without becoming an Amway IBO. People pay her to chase ghosts
from their houses.

Try
iMusic
(your soundtrack for success) to enhance your brain. iMusic will entrain
your brain into peak performance mode. Indeed. You'd have to be performing
at a very low level to fall for this load of meaningless jargon. If the
iMusic site doesn't satisfy your need for a belly quack, try
Dr. Zhi Gang Sha's page. Sha seems to
have learned from Jacques
Benveniste. He sends blessings over the telephone that are then coded
into frozen water crystals by magical soul software so the blessings can be
delivered to human organs around the world. His website says he does free
remote healings but I was sent a copy of an e-mail recently regarding a
woman who has given Dr. Sha $73,000 over the past two years. Maybe she just
likes him but apparently her husband isn't too pleased. She does seem to be
a bit generous. One may purchase Zhi Gang Sha Soul Software for Communicable
Diseases for a mere $400.00, according to his website.